wfrank: the light rays are "produced" by the exit pupil. You have to essentially ignore the physical placement of the elements, and look at there the pupil appears.

Also, if I understand correctly, the exit pupil is where the aperture blades appear to be when viewing the back of the lens?

Meanwhile - regarding the D800E. Anyone have any links to where it's explained how they "removed" the AA filter without removing it?

I've heard references to them using another filter to "undo" the AA filter effects. I'm not sure that's possible, let alone why that would be something they'd want to do.

Also, rotating the AA filter 90 degrees wouldn't work because it's already a bi-directional filter -- you need to filter up-down and left-right. And the pixel pitch should be the same in both directions too.

Also if the LPF effect is an optical property of the medium it may be completely rotation-independent. If not, maybe they rotated it 45 degrees? But then it still seems simpler to use some other material that has a similar index of refraction and just doesn't blur the image at all.

I'd think the rear element is going to have the last impact on the angle of incidence for the light being refracted as it passes through it from the lens. Each element creates its own degree of angle change to the next element via refraction ... the last one should determine the final refraction adjustment to the path en route to the sensor. Then it's free air, until striking the microlens.

It may be possible for Ron or whomever (I think Ron has done enough already and I mean that in the nicest way) to do something quite scientific - get an M camera and take it to a shop and shoot the exact same frame with a7/a7r and the M camera. There is nothing like a comparison...

If wilhelm's post on page 21 is anything to go by, we could be hopeful, and I agree with him.

Another thought occurred - could Sony consider nobbling the a7 by retaining the AA, assuming of course in this present fog of uncertainty that the a7r may be better? Again, colour is a smallish problem - smearing is the issue at stake.

And how many people are really used to looking as intently as they now are, at the extreme corners of their Leica M output? Hence my first suggestion.

philip_pj wrote:
It may be possible for Ron or whomever (I think Ron has done enough already and I mean that in the nicest way) to do something quite scientific - get an M camera and take it to a shop and shoot the exact same frame with a7/a7r and the M camera. There is nothing like a comparison...

If wilhelm's post on page 21 is anything to go by, we could be hopeful, and I agree with him.

Another thought occurred - could Sony consider nobbling the a7 by retaining the AA, assuming of course in this present fog of uncertainty that the a7r may be better? Again, colour is a smallish problem - smearing is the issue at stake.

And how many people are really used to looking as intently as they now are, at the extreme corners of their Leica M output? Hence my first suggestion....Show more →
+1

Ron, in keeping with his history, has created a firestorm on all the forums. The difference is: first time he actually had a nex-7. This time he didn't have the camera we are interested in, and thanks to sony, most don't realize the difference.

What's sort of incredible is the glee and joy expressed by many: Ha! the new sony doesn't do leica!

Seriously--I'm not that polite of a person, but I simply can't imagine going to a new camera thread and posting: OMG that's so ugly!!!

I'm sure they're really doing something that looks like that, and it seems to have the desired effect, but everything I know about what could be described as a "low-pass filter" seems to be irrelevant to what they're saying those two layers do. (how does the second layer know which photons to recombine and which ones are legitimately coming in at the second location and hence should be left alone?).

The only reason for me to go A7r over the A7 is it handles RF WAs better. 24MP is enough demanding for a good lens. I see people claim that 36 w/o AA is soo much better at landscape, more details will traverse down even to websize. I have yet to see that but as an unlikely early adopter for these cams I ill probably have ample time to see what some of you knowledgeable guys come up with.

We also have to get used to the fact that you now put APS-C pixel-density demands on the peripheral parts of these FF lenses that was never used by all of us adopting these lenses for APS-C. Any of the fine lenses I have, e.g. ZE21, doesnt have the same quality in the corners as in center. This cant be a surprise by anyone really.

philip_pj wrote:
And how many people are really used to looking as intently as they now are, at the extreme corners of their Leica M output?

Good point. BTW, the CV 15 look equally good stopped down F/8-11 as the example I posted on page 20. If people think these (ZM and CV15 stopped down) are examples of smearing they never saw what the Contax G21 can do on the NEX 5N. It's a totally different ball game. Still it's an able lens that with some targeted PP could be used. Here's a ice shot that has smearing + color cast/magenta la-di-da-da. They can turn out good anyway.

Encouragingly, "the good" lenses only have a tiny portion of the corner smeared and by 5.6 that smearing is gone. Even in case of "the ugly", corners are usable by f8 or f11. I'm in fact surprised by how good the corner of CV15 looks, seems to me usable at all apertures.

Probably best to put comments on this thread of the several we have going at present.

Wilhelm, I am pretty confident that aware RAW shooters will find plenty of ways to handle particularly colour corner issues, and that the new cameras will be stunning in ways that many will find near to irresistable - the new BIONX Z chip is emerging as the key reason why this is so.

Tim Ashley weighs in on adapting Leica M lenses:

'Case in point, I tried my treasured M 50 Lux on the EM-1 yesterday and the edges are mush.'

'..even the M240, with its bespoke, lens-aware firmware profiles, struggles to deal with the color shading issues, as I have documented in my series of reviews.'

He then launches off into an impassioned exhortation for the RF in the M cameras, most comments about EVF I must disagree with for FC, but link is here for the true believers as another data point:

joe88 wrote:
Do they actually have a plan for their photographic product line?

Looking at Sony in the compact interchangeable and compact high end market, I'd say yes, they have a plan. They also seem lighter on their feet than many makers. Owning the largest chunk of image sensor fab on the planet might be a source of confidence too.

Dispassionately, I see them more as innovators and sector disrupter. Consider that it was barely 3 years ago that the first NEX camera arrived on the scene. They are now the largest single selling product family in the APS-C mirrorless space.

Just a few short years ago NEX didn't even exist. Since 2010 they started with entry and mid-level interchangeable lens cameras, brought in a high end APS-C version; then multiple revisions within the line. Then a high end fixed lens full frame and now an interchangeable lens full frame camera.

If that's not planned progression, what is?

To me, I see Sony as only interested in capturing the interest of early innovators and us geeks in the consumer and professional market who are willing to pay a premium as early adopters.

There's a C3 or F3 for everyone through, so either I disagree or I'm missing your point.

Given the Alpha DSLT relatively low market penetration, it makes sense for a maker like Sony to focus on owning a segment **that no one else markets to**, and do own it before Nikon or Canon finally make the leap as surely someday they will.

Here's hoping that Ricoh will release a full frame GXR for some of us.

The GXR as a concept -- modular camera -- I feel is dead. Wish it weren't, I own one.

It'd make more sense for Ricoh-Pentax to produce a full frame DSLR in a small form factor; they already have some full frame capable lenses in the Pentax line. If they really want to do something new, then make a full frame GRI (GR-Interchangable) mirrorless with a short back focal mount, and make a whole new lens line. Sounds like risky proposition for a company that doesn't even have an APS-C ILC product any more. (GXR is dead).

philip_pj wrote:
Probably best to put comments on this thread of the several we have going at present.

Wilhelm, I am pretty confident that aware RAW shooters will find plenty of ways to handle particularly colour corner issues, and that the new cameras will be stunning in ways that many will find near to irresistable - the new BIONX Z chip is emerging as the key reason why this is so.

Tim Ashley weighs in on adapting Leica M lenses:

'Case in point, I tried my treasured M 50 Lux on the EM-1 yesterday and the edges are mush.'

'..even the M240, with its bespoke, lens-aware firmware profiles, struggles to deal with the color shading issues, as I have documented in my series of reviews.'

He then launches off into an impassioned exhortation for the RF in the M cameras, most comments about EVF I must disagree with for FC, but link is here for the true believers as another data point:

wfrank wrote:
The only reason for me to go A7r over the A7 is it handles RF WAs better. 24MP is enough demanding for a good lens. I see people claim that 36 w/o AA is soo much better at landscape, more details will traverse down even to websize. I have yet to see that but as an unlikely early adopter for these cams I ill probably have ample time to see what some of you knowledgeable guys come up with.

I think you'll see some advantage in 24MP downsized R files vs. native a7 files. The question will be whether the difference will be relevant in real life use. When I did my 21mm shootout and added the NEX-7 at the last minute, I was quite surprised how much better its files looked when downsized to 12MP vs. the native output of the GXR. Granted, that's a 24>12MP jump, rather than 36>24, but there should still be some difference.

Philip: I very badly wanted to shoot the same scenes with the M9, but ran out of time and 'good' weather. I agree that having such images would have provided a reference point against which to better compare the a7 results.

Nanh: Stopped down performance with many of the lenses is acceptable. The issue for me at least is that I know I can get better and more consistent results from the M9. It's kind of pointless to buy a $1300 ZM21/2.8 only to shoot it at f/8 or greater, IMO.

Gary Clennan wrote:
I also agree with Tim that focusing M lenses using the RF produces the best results. The RF mechanism on the M240 is absolutely amazing (and accurate) to say the least.

And IMO, much faster to focus accurately than magnified live view. When I did the a7 infinity test, I had to use live view to confirm focus because all of the adapted lenses focused past infinity, and there were times when it wasn't easy to determine the exactly correct focus.

Gary Clennan wrote:
I also agree with Tim that focusing M lenses using the RF produces the best results. The RF mechanism on the M240 is absolutely amazing (and accurate) to say the least.

rangefinder focusing is quick and accurate and great for fast wides as long as your subject is holding still or in the center. i can't focus on a little kid while they're off center and moving with a rangefinder though. i have no problem doing that with an evf though (or an slr). depends on how you shoot which you'll prefer, then of course some of the fun lenses have focus shift that you have to learn to guess the right adjustment for if you use a rangefinder.

According to Henry, the sensors are mainly different in the number of pixel sites and lack of AA filter. He implies they are both "gapless and offset", and that smearing is nearly inevitable wide open with many RF lenses.

sebboh wrote:
rangefinder focusing is quick and accurate and great for fast wides as long as your subject is holding still or in the center. i can't focus on a little kid while they're off center and moving with a rangefinder though. i have no problem doing that with an evf though (or an slr). depends on how you shoot which you'll prefer, then of course some of the fun lenses have focus shift that you have to learn to guess the right adjustment for if you use a rangefinder.

Yeah - I suppose it all comes down to personal preference. I have two very active kids and I can focus very well with RF and have a good keeper rate. My opinion is that once you commit to using a RF, you become very good at it. One cannot expect to use it for a week or two and become an expert. It take practice but is worth it IMO. Also - accuracy is very good for longer lenses as well.

Gary Clennan wrote:
Yeah - I suppose it all comes down to personal preference. I have two very active kids and I can focus very well with RF and have a good keeper rate. My opinion is that once you commit to using a RF, you become very good at it. One cannot expect to use it for a week or two and become an expert. It take practice but is worth it IMO. Also - accuracy is very good for longer lenses as well.

oh, i think a rangefinder has the fastest speed for a given accuracy in terms of manual focus methods, the problem is you can only track things that are in the center and i usually like to put people off to the side of the frame. this is fine if you have time for focus and recompose, but super annoying if you've gotten used to being able to focus off center while tracking.

uhoh7 wrote:
According to Henry, the sensors are mainly different in the number of pixel sites and lack of AA filter. He implies they are both "gapless and offset", and that smearing is nearly inevitable wide open with many RF lenses.